Quote from hrtburnout :

Find Erik

It's the RIGHT one! I could recognize the pedo face under u black visor.

Quote from IsaacPrice :

scipy lines

I'm a true pioneer!

0 racers from Papua New Guinea?!?! I can hardly believe it :P

UTC Time of Incident: 20:18
Lap and Location of Incident: Lap 29 Turn 4
Your Car Number: 60
Other Car(s) Involved: 11, 60
Brief Description of Incident: 11 is a moron. DQ him.

Would anyone be willing to provide some help with LFS 3D models?

Some basic remodeling such as getting rid of some sharp features, defeaturing rims, unnecessary intakes, holes, aligning some out-of-plane vertices etc..

I need some "cleaner" models for CAD preparation and further work. I used to bother r4ptor with this, but he's been busy lately so I'm looking for a replacement

If someone is willing to help, just PM me.. and tnx in advance.

I've just finished watching a WONDERFUL movie. Here's the IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1912398/

In any case, Mr. Milkman, you'd be at the top of my "to do" list if I was ever to experience a "Last Action Hero" moment and find myself within the movie world.

Now, please go away before I make it my life's mission to harvest most of your organs and subsequently buy ~1250 S2 vouchers from the black market organ sales profits and wholeheartedly post them in a thread here.

Does anyone have a FX-8150 bulldozer in their configuration, with at least 8 (if possible 16) GB memory?

If you do, and you're willing to spare a few hours of your time to help me test something, please PM.

Quote from Bluebird B B :

Just think of why many people stopping watching F1, overtaking: on corner exit pedal to the medal, your car will take care of your corner exit. action nr 2: push a button voila you passed the car which was in front of you. Real battles for position in F1 are currently something from the past. That is the effect of using driving aids...

What are you talking about? There is no driver aids allowed in F1 currently, including TC and ABS.. and imho the usage of DRS actually improved overtaking quite drastically. I agree that FIA sometimes misses the activation zones a bit so overtakes are maybe "too easy", but in most of the races DRS and KERS provided just enough help to enable overtaking maneuvers or on the other hand give the guy in front a fighting chance (KERS defense). Remembering the first 3-4 races of 2011 season, it was probably some of the most exciting and best racing I've seen in a long time.

(Pirelli tires and strategy involved helped a lot in this aspect too, ofcourse.)

Quote from Seb66 :

Thanks To be completely honest I think my driving style is like that in those sessions out of necessity, with the wet track and shite old tyres that was really the only way I could get the kart to turn into the corners!
I haven't had a completely dry session yet while I've owned the GoPro, so it would be interesting to see if my driving style changes at all with the different conditions. Who knows, maybe I'm actually an Alonso wannabe

Exactly. It wasn't really Alonso's "style" either, it was just that Renault had a much larger capacity for longitudinal performance than lateral, so he would brake too late, force understeer and accelerate early. It was just a faster way around a corner with 2005/6 Renault F1. Seb on the other hand, just sux :P I joke, he's the next motorsport messiah.

Has anyone noticed the shared behavior of the cars in these videos? Not a hint of oversteer, and that too well known "understeer-then-regain-grip-immediately-after-and-out-of-nowhere"?

I sent one of the "developers" a PM that starts with "I'm probably going to come off as a douche, but it's really not my intent." so you can probably guess at the content.

Kegetys raises some good questions, one of mine was this "pay-for-say" approach and that they might miss out on quality advice from people who can't afford to spend 1000 euros just like that. But mostly I'm worried about what kind of a "sim" can the developers of arcade games produce.. If it's just repackaged NFS I'm gonna be pretty pissed, cause the graphics look amazing.. that Sun is so goddamn sunny.

Well, just don't forget it in the oven.. not much can go wrong otherwise. :P It won't spontaneously combust or anything. Btw, have some thermal paste ready to install the coolers again, and obviously clean all the old paste from the chips before baking the gpu.

Davo my nub, since I've had the same issue I can prolly tell u what it is.

The solders on the GPU are starting to have microcracks. At least that's what happened on my 8800 GTS 640 mb, after much googling I found the solution to be to strip the card of the cooler and everything not soldered to it and stick it in the oven for 10 min @ 200°C.

This kind of outlines how to do it:
http://www.overclock.net/nvidi ... ts-baking-successful.html

Basically, get some aluminum foil, stick it on the bottom of a flat pan, make 4 aluminum balls around 1-1.5 cm in diameter and stick the gpu on them (cpu looking at the al foil/pan and solders sticking up like in the pics), put it in the preheated oven for 8-10 min (depending who u ask).

I know your gpu still seems to function normally (as mine did, but soon enough it's going to start throwing artefacts before freezing, and then it's gonna be artefacts even in windows and then it's not gonna work any more), but you can try to bake it now, or wait for the artefacts.. in any case, I think that's what happening since it's a known problem with the 8800 series after the 3rd year of their life cycle.

It's been nearly a year since mine started freezing etc, it's been baked 2 times now and works ok.. Obviously if I ever get enough spare cash to invest in a new one, I will.. but if you're already thinking of buying a new one, you have nothing to lose by trying a "bake".

Quote from rafalw_22 :

All scenes from http://ds-autos.digiserv.net
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JPKL37HD

Thank you sir!

Quote from GAVD999 :

Full set of the lfs cars here : http://ds-autos.digiserv.net/scenes/lfs

Yeah, I tried that yesterday..

Hello,

Could I get someone kind enough to send me LFS car 3d models in a .3ds file format?

I am a 3D nub so forgive the next question but I have to ask it anyway: Would it be really hard to exclude everything other than the outer car shape with wheels/tires from the model? I am doing some fluid flow simulations and I'm only interested in the outer shape (body shell with solid windows and wheels/tires) so I don't need any interior etc.. and on import it'd save quite a bit of surfaces.

If anyone is willing to send car models in this form, I would be eternally grateful.

Another question, any way to turn them into solid geometry before sending?

If there's anyone willing to help, you can PM me and we'll exchange info.

What is this trickery?!?!?! What? A right turn?

Blasphemy.

Quote from ponczak :

Because I have written this post many years ago and everything in LFS was new to me then. As for now I'm just getting bored of LFS after 30 minutes of playing. We don't need all the physics stuff if it's too hard to develop. We just need some extra tracks / roads. That's all.

I'm split on this comment. On one hand, any time I tried to drive another simulation competitively (like rFactor/iPaying) after the initial buzz of everything new about it and all the features that LFS didn't have (real cars, real tracks, brake heating, water/oil heating, night racing etc) there was always a much larger downside on the physics side when it actually came to driving for several hours in a row.

That being said.. LFS already has much better physics than all of these games (and I'm not getting into another argument which is better and how you can't judge the two, because you can and LFS physics is better), and really what would help is just content and simple expansion features like more wide and fast tracks with more pit boxes, larger number of connections allowed on the server, etc.

As far as rev configs not being available on Rockingham, I don't see this as bad news. Currently there are maybe a fraction of configs in LFS that work in Rev configuration because some of them just weren't planned on being driven in reverse. Sometimes there are curbs on corner exits for a regular configuration, but a similar curb is missing on the entry because it wasn't considered when the track was made. If you want nice and drivable rev configurations, then the tracks as such will look pretty silly because they'd have to aim for a compromise between types of corners.. as some are just pure awesomeness in one direction, but completely undrivable in the other so you would have to have bland corners that wouldn't change too much with direction you go through them.

However, the thing I currently like most about LFS is the freedom. So, while some of the real life tracks would just be rubbish in reverse direction the option should probably be considered. As far as imaginary S3 content goes, yes.. allow the rev configurations but consider putting a curb here and there on both corner entry and exit so it's a bit less sucky than some tracks currently are.

Quote from PMD9409 :

Stuff like that is why I look forward to the rF2 release. It's sad to say I know, but they will actually have some interesting stuff, and since it's only a one-time payment, it won't hurt my pocket no where near as bad as iRacing has.

+1 to some of this. I'm looking forward to some aspects of RF2, but it's hard to be impressed with tire lockups, load distribution and things that LFS has had for ~6 years as something "new". Also, if RF2 is anything like RF1 (a glorified physics calculator that works on notepad files) it will be kinda disappointing.

TBH, I'd just like to be able to try that WSGT 2 mod that has some promising cars/interiors/tracks..

Quote from jasonmatthews :

Think of this, if S3 was released, and Scawen asked us to pay £2 each for him to get a track laser scanned, would you pay it? I certainly would. The fact we don't have to pay a fee to just stay playing the game, the fact that it is a 3 man team and the fact that LFS is more fun, would make this a no brainer IMHO.

IMO, I'd have no problem paying even iRacing rates for content in LFS. If there could be a new track and a few cars every 3 months, no one would be happier than me. Real tracks would be great, but even imaginary content with a bit less of the unrealistic chicanes etc would be just fine. Cars especially, pick any real life car, make it good physics wise and slap some body mashed up of 3 separate cars on it and I'm good to go.. no need to have a BMW or whaeva sticker on it.

Quote from Bawbag :

Nice post though Sasa, good to see lickin ass!

Rimjobs 5 dolla

Quote from Dygear :

As with any project there must be a planning stage. That and no one has said that they are actually going to do this. I've expressed an interest, and that's why I keep on replying to this thread. Anyway what's wrong with having ideas and sharing them?

I am quite familiar with product development stages and the stage of idea generating techniques, but mostly everyone agrees that they should converge on the original goal of the project or a solution to a problem. When ideas start to generate new problems instead of aiming to solve the original problem, the whole process should be reconsidered.

Here we have an already working application, the WolleT/Boothy tracker. This application handles a great amount of data and is already set up to process and display it in a way familiar (and useful) to everyone. Your expertise in matters of PHP came highly recommended and that is why I came here and asked for this small update to an already working application.

However, and forgive my observations but, all that I've seen is a group of coders that (maybe rightfully) think their PRISM project is the be all end all of PHP and InSim, and immediately want to convert and/or change completely the whole tracker application. I understand if some sort of a plugin needs to be written for the W/B tracker to communicate with PRISM, especially if that is the easiest way for you to complete the project with the least amount of work. But ideas to completely forget the W/B tracker and just have some completely new PRISM InSim application handle everything on it's own seems to me like a huge project that would take months to complete, and for what? Just so the original modification can be implemented?

I will not reflect on other ideas that also lead away from the original aim of the project, some of them not even being possible in the first place.

What I'm asking is, with all this energy being spent on nothing very productive, why don't we channel it towards something like implementing the pretty simple mathematical model on which this idea rests?

Maybe one more question: has anyone even downloaded the W/B tracker + source/documentation and had a look at how this update could be done?

My goal is not to hurt anyone's feelings or call you out, but I'm afraid from an outside perspective that things are going exactly in the wrong direction..

Dear Scawen,

For the probably first time ever, I have to hand it to you.. massive respect for not cracking under hater's pressure and releasing the tire model before you feel it's ready.

As you might know, iRacing 2.0 came out officially and I've been able to try their "updates". My opinion of iRacing has always been that it's too expensive (for what it offers, I'd gladly pay for everything if LFS physics model was behind it), too restrictive as far as what you can drive and when, too restrictive as far as their safety rating system goes, generally too SHITTY as far as their physics goes etc. But even I found myself thinking "ok, maybe they'll finally fix the tires and subsequently the rest of the physics" (because if they fixed the tires they'd see their physics model is so shit and they'd have to fix that too) and finally maybe it could get me to start driving the damn thing while I wait for LFS updates..

Glad to report they failed completely. The "new" tire model is almost exactly like the old one, with an added bonus of actually being slightly worse.

The LMP2 car behaves nothing like one would guess it should. It understeers into every fast turn, it suddenly oversteers out of any slow turn, the autoclutch control while starting is just as bad as every other iRacing car with almost no wheelspin possible if u slam on the throttle at idle and then you can't even save the oversteer if you give it some revs before shifting to 1st gear.. even if u completely let go of the throttle and keep the wheel straight.

The Ford GT has some HARD nascar tires with MINIMUM pressure of 2.4 bar that have NO GRIP at all, pressure raise with temp is non existent, wear also, they work best at 130°C. It's basically just a tank that looks like a Ford GT..

Plus, the added bonus of their whole community being split between the guys who actually do some road racing and drove good simulations like LFS and the NASCAR/oval only drivers. The first group is actually beginning to question the product and the people behind if if they released this kind of an update and dared to called it THE NEXT REVOLUTION IN ONLINE RACING, while the ladder doesn't even seem to recognize that anything is wrong and they keep saying everything is great and that it's the best experience ever plus patting themselves and the devs on the back for a great job.

Literally, how could you not notice the car is 10 seconds off from real life race pace and on completely wrong tires? Is the whole development team a cluster of vegetables? What about the beta testers? Wow.

So, when I received a notification email from iRacing today notifying me of their official 2.0 status and a myriad of their great updates I replied back:

"You should be ashamed of yourselves. Especially you Kraemmer. Revolution.. as if."

In spite of some of it's flaws, I believe in LFS as a product now more than ever before. Keep up the slow and good work.

Quote from Dygear :

I think that the only way to do the properly is by setting the server into practice mode, and allowing the InSim application to take over race control completely. This would allow for example things like a warm up lap, and a cool down lap.

I think this is taking it too far again. Setting the server into practice mode would render the LFS Remote (which is used a lot during the race by team managers/other drivers) useless for checking gaps, split times etc..

Forgive me for my observation (especially if I'm wrong) but, is it just me or is this thread kind of going into the direction of "let's do everything other than the (now) simple original idea"?

Quote from avetere :

Please do not give any players their extra-lap by faking a split- and/or laptime, thus virtually creating an extra-lap in middle of all the others.
Instead this should be handled via a "negative penalty lap", thus simply overriding the lapcount (as is currently done by substracting a positive value per rejoin from the lapcount).

Then, instead of finding some way to hold the rejoined driver in place, one might additionally consider to do a similar thing with the total racetime, by giving the racer/team a time penalty corresponding to the part of the laptime the driver wasn't able to do. (which might be difficult as there may be cases, where you's have to get an average lap out of nowhere or the lap the disco occured in was a very bad one and additionally it occured late on that lap giving you a negative time to wait )

So, let me get this straight. First off, no one would be faking splits and/or laptimes in the "middle" of all others. What would be done is what you describe: just add a lap same as they can currently be taken away for Shift+P penalties and such. However, in your idea the reconnecting driver would just continue driving right away and would later be given a time penalty (like DT or SG added after the race), but the track positions wouldn't match at all after the reconnect. How would one keep track of gaps if there are several hours left until race is over? If you propose serving the time penalty right after the reconnect, then what is the difference (other than your idea would still produce mismatches in track position and timing after the initial reconnect)?

Why wouldn't you just have the system automatically hold the driver as soon as they've reconnected and have everything (timing and track position) be correct as soon as he starts the lap? If you are so against tracker showing this 1 extra lap for the duration of the reconnect.. then fine, the extra lap can be added after the driver finishes the first lap after reconnect. I don't quite see the need for it, but ok.. As things currently are with the tracker, a team that has timed out doesn't know who they're racing until they finish 1 lap after timeout, at least this way they'd know their position has stayed the same.

Quote from avetere :

Or (my favorite): Give a penalty corresponding to a certain percentage (e.g. 105%) of the team's average lap. This of course can only be done AFTER the race in the results. For live timing one could come up with a note/display that a time penalty for a certain amount of rejoins is pending and will be added later on.

Why would you give the team 105 % of their avg lap? That is several seconds of pure penalty for what? Laps shoud either be taken as average of the previous 2-3 laps (excluding some huge crash or incident) or as a laptime guessed by the admins for the 45 % rule calculation (i.e. avg lap over a stint, but then teams can again lose or gain up to 1 second depending on fuel load they were on at the moment of TO).

Again, doing this after the race means the track positions and timing are out of sync until the race is over and you have no idea who you are racing.. Plus, why would you give a team a penalty for a certain amount of rejoins? It's not like their objective is to time out or have hardware problems, trust me, it's annoying enough when it happens and the rage experienced by the person who timed out is penalty enough.

Quote from avetere :

Apart from - in my opinion - being the by far simplest and thus easiest to implement of all ways (you'd only have to implement "negative penalties" and time penalties, no other freaky stuff like holding cars in place or keeping them from rejoining), doing it that way one would preserve a maximised compatibility with results from alternative evaluations

Everything you've said simply doesn't work during the race, it's a manipulation of results afterwards and the whole idea is to be able to race from and for a position you were in before timeout.. One more thing, holding a car in place (which in this case is same as keeping them from rejoining) is freaky? Why? In real life there are pitlane lights which serve specifically for this purpose.

In short, your idea not only doesn't solve the problem at hand, it makes racing for position on track impossible and I thought that everyone wanted to see that actually happen instead of results manipulation after the race?